341–350 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask after the normal survey is complete and submitted.
Only works once per interviewer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends what you mean by "productive" - if the law firm makes more money off of male lawyers, that would mean they are more "productive"
Directly, perhaps. What if the women were doing non-billable work that enabled their colleagues to bill more combined total hours than they would have had she done billable work instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already know there is a disparity in the amount of housekeeping between men and women, even in couples where both men and women are working.
Housekeeping tends to be something only the woman cares about, though. Do I deserve sympathy for all the unpaid work I put in managing our fantasy football team?
Not to mention that taking care of babies, in some senses, has to be done by women, as men can't breastfeed. (I'm of course only talking about breastfeeding, but it is a significant amount of work that only a woman can do, unless you prefer to feed your baby from bottles, but this has been proven to be less healthy and therefore less preferred for the baby).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only works once per interviewer.
You can't prevent people from asking themselves if a modulated voice is a man or woman. If they are inclined to ask that question, then they are going to ask it no matter what you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You all should record the audio from the original modulated interviews, then play them in both male and female versions to sample sets of separate observer groups that rank the performance of the person being interviewed. That way, you would be isolating the thing you are testing to just the voice, and you would be able to establish controls and a baseline for the exact same interview. The way your test is described…
You're absolutely right re controls. Re your suggestion, totally agree, and please stay tuned :)
The biggest thing, and I believe it has already been mentioned, is trying not to bias the raters. The best way fmpov being to pre-record interviews and play them to several different people.
The above would prevent testing for attrition but I think one variable at the time is the way to go. You could test attrition later by having ratings go a certain way and then seeing how subjects respond when they know that they interviewer knows their gender vs when they dont etc.
If you have any interest in trying to get this published academically, and I want to make sure you understand I am a very lowly research assistant, I could talk to some of the professors at my university to see if there is any interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already know there is a disparity in the amount of housekeeping between men and women, even in couples where both men and women are working.
I would be willing to bet that men do more of the DIY and fixing things type stuff in most couples.
Also, in terms of fixing things, that's supposed to be something you do once, and it stays fixed. Much of traditional "women's work" is recurring.
Can you pick your own filter? Would go for Laurie Anderson's Voice of Authority anytime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YajQNIAY78k&feature=youtu.be... Used to great extent here: The Cultural Ambassador - Live https://open.spotify.com/track/3uM0L8r6lJGaU54v9RjwJK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you're absolutely right. But that's also a terrible excuse: "Oh, the problem is before the candidates reach me, so there's no need for me to do anything to fix the problem myself." Everyone at all stages -- from folks who bully nerds in primary school, to toymakers who promote scientific fields as 'for boys', to college admissions offices, to CS professors, to CS classmates, to hiring processes -- can work toget…
There is nothing you can do that isn't blatant sexism if you want your ratio of female employees to be higher than the candidate pool ratio.
By your logic, I should hire 2 men, because dividing that candidate pool in half leaves the women at "less than half of a person". Equivalently, I should leave it up to a coin flip, which has an expected value of E(two men).
But why? Since we have already established that the candidates are in all other respects equal, why shouldn't I choose the candidates that I think will do my company the most good: bring in the most diverse perspectives, life experiences, and skill sets?
Of course it is a simplified example. And maybe you think that expressing an interest in diversity in this fashion is "reverse sexism". But I think it is a clear win for my company, a clear win for women everywhere, and I don't care if it isn't a clear win for men -- we win often enough anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing you can do that isn't blatant sexism if you want your ratio of female employees to be higher than the candidate pool ratio.
I agree, mostly. I do not condone lowering the bar for just one gender. But maybe it's possible to target some advertising for your opening to get a larger number of female applicants? If you're applicant pool is skewed towards male, perhaps there's something about how you advertise that biases it?